ST/AI/2002/4

  • Medical Clearances and Fitness to Work (UNHCR/AI/2022/03)
  • MONUSCO AI No. 2013/15
  • ST/A1/371/Amend.1
  • ST/AI/149/Rev.4
  • ST/AI/155/Rev.2
  • ST/AI/189/Add.6/Rev.4
  • ST/AI/189/Add.6/Rev.5
  • ST/AI/1994/4
  • ST/AI/1997/4
  • ST/AI/1997/6
  • ST/AI/1997/7
  • ST/AI/1998/1
  • ST/AI/1998/4
  • ST/AI/1998/7
  • ST/AI/1998/7/Amend.1
  • ST/AI/1998/9
  • ST/AI/1999/111
  • ST/AI/1999/12
  • ST/AI/1999/13
  • ST/AI/1999/16
  • ST/AI/1999/17
  • //1999/17​
  • ST/AI/1999/3
  • ST/AI/1999/6
  • ST/AI/1999/7
  • ST/AI/1999/8
  • ST/AI/1999/9
  • ST/AI/2000/1
  • ST/AI/2000/10
  • ST/AI/2000/11
  • ST/AI/2000/12
  • ST/AI/2000/13
  • ST/AI/2000/16
  • ST/AI/2000/19
  • ST/AI/2000/20
  • ST/AI/2000/4
  • ST/AI/2000/5
  • ST/AI/2000/6
  • ST/AI/2000/8
  • ST/AI/2000/8/Amend.2
  • ST/AI/2000/9
  • ST/AI/2001/2
  • ST/AI/2001/7/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/2001/8
  • ST/AI/2002/1
  • ST/AI/2002/3
  • ST/AI/2002/4
  • ST/AI/2003/1
  • ST/AI/2003/3
  • ST/AI/2003/4
  • ST/AI/2003/7
  • ST/AI/2003/8
  • ST/AI/2003/8/Amend.2
  • ST/AI/2004/1
  • ST/AI/2004/3
  • ST/AI/2005/12
  • ST/AI/2005/2
  • ST/AI/2005/2/Amend.2
  • ST/AI/2005/3
  • ST/AI/2005/3/Amend.1
  • ST/AI/2005/3/Section 3.2
  • ST/AI/2005/5
  • ST/AI/2006
  • ST/AI/2006/3
  • ST/AI/2006/3/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/2006/4
  • ST/AI/2006/5
  • ST/AI/2006/5/Section 11
  • ST/AI/2007/1
  • ST/AI/2007/3
  • ST/AI/2008/3
  • ST/AI/2008/5
  • ST/AI/2009/1
  • ST/AI/2009/10
  • ST/AI/2010/1
  • ST/AI/2010/12
  • ST/AI/2010/3
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Amend. 1
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Amend.1
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Section 11.1
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Section 2.5
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Section 6.1
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Section 6.5
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Section 7.5
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Section 9.3
  • ST/AI/2010/4
  • ST/AI/2010/4/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/2010/5
  • ST/AI/2010/5/Corr.1
  • ST/AI/2010/5/Section 15.1
  • ST/AI/2010/5/Section 15.7
  • ST/AI/2010/5/Section 4
  • ST/AI/2010/5/Section 7
  • ST/AI/2010/6
  • ST/AI/2010/7
  • ST/AI/2011/3
  • ST/AI/2011/4
  • ST/AI/2011/5
  • ST/AI/2011/6
  • ST/AI/2011/7
  • ST/AI/2012/1
  • ST/AI/2012/2
  • ST/AI/2012/2/Rev. 1
  • ST/AI/2012/2/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/2012/3
  • ST/AI/2012/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/2013/1
  • ST/AI/2013/1/Corr. 1
  • ST/AI/2013/3
  • ST/AI/2013/4
  • ST/AI/2015/2
  • ST/AI/2016/1
  • ST/AI/2016/2
  • ST/AI/2016/6
  • ST/AI/2016/8
  • ST/AI/2017/1
  • ST/AI/2017/2
  • ST/AI/2018/1
  • ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/2018/10
  • ST/AI/2018/10
  • ST/AI/2018/10/Corr.1
  • ST/AI/2018/2/Amend.1: sec. 6.1 and sec. 6.2
  • ST/AI/2018/5
  • ST/AI/2018/6
  • ST/AI/2018/7
  • ST/AI/2019/1
  • ST/AI/2019/1/Section 4.3
  • ST/AI/2019/3/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/2020/3
  • ST/AI/2020/5
  • ST/AI/2021/4
  • ST/AI/222
  • ST/AI/234
  • ST/AI/234/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/234/Rev.1/Amend.1
  • ST/AI/240/Rev.2
  • ST/AI/246
  • ST/AI/273
  • ST/AI/292
  • ST/AI/293
  • ST/AI/294
  • ST/AI/299
  • ST/AI/308/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/309/Rev.2
  • ST/AI/326
  • ST/AI/343
  • ST/AI/367
  • ST/AI/371
  • ST/AI/371/Amend.1
  • ST/AI/372
  • ST/AI/379
  • ST/AI/394
  • ST/AI/397
  • ST/AI/400
  • ST/AI/401
  • ST/AI/404
  • ST/AI/408
  • ST/AI/411
  • ST/Al/2010/5
  • UNHCR/AI/2016/3
  • UNHCR/AI/2019/16/Corrigendum ((Administrative Instruction on the Management of Temporary Appointments)
  • UNHCR/AI/2019/7/Rev.1
  • UNMISS AI No. 005/2011
  • UNOPS Administrative Instruction Concerning Contract Renewals of Staff Members 2010 AI/HPRG/2010/02
  • Showing 1 - 10 of 19

    UNDT found the application receivable and determined that the post number provided by the ICSC for reclassification purposes was that of a Compensation Officer with functions distinct from those performed by the applicant. Therefore, in the absence of a properly budgeted post, the request of the ICSC was a request for classification advice prior to a budgetary submission, which required General-Assembly approval. The reclassification proposal was not included in the budgetary submission to the General Assembly, and, accordingly, the General Assembly did not approve the proposed...

    In its Judgment 2010-UNAT-029, El-Khatib, the Appeals Tribunal upheld the jurisprudence of the former 山Administrative Tribunal whereby only circumstances beyond the applicant’s control that prevented him from timely pursuit of his appeal can be regarded as exceptional. The fact that the applicant believed at first that the contested decision was lawful is not an exceptional circumstance, the more so as he had the possibility to obtain information on the applicable rules from the Administration. In El-Khatib, the Appeals Tribunal further recalled that “candidates for a public post are...

    UNDT found that the restructuring and the creation of the new post were undertaken in good faith and the decisions to abolish the applicant’s post and to end his contract were proper. UNDT also found that the applicant was told about the new post and invited to apply. As to the failure to complete the work plan and performance evaluation reports, this was irrelevant because it was not the reason for the non-renewal of the applicant’s contract, and, in any case, was due to the applicant himself. Outcome: The application was dismissed.

    The apportionment of points was not done fairly or objectively in two respects:- Experience: logically, either both the Applicant and the selected candidate should have received the maximum 50 points or the Applicant should have been given more than the selected candidate.- Languages: the Applicant’s had five less points than the selected candidate. An objective evaluation would have given her more. Outcome: The Tribunal found that evaluation of the Applicant’s candidacy for the concerned position was not carried out in a full and fair manner and awarded her compensation in the amount of 4...

    UNDT held that the decision not to select the Applicant was appropriately reviewed by the JAB panel and therefore proper. UNDT held that the requirement of relevant experience was appropriate and necessary for this particular vacancy and that the selection process was conducted in a proper manner. UNDT held that the JAB panel addressed the appropriate legal principles and that, in applying those princples to the facts of the case, it asked the correct questions and considered the appropriate authorities. UNDT held that the Applicant failed to satisfy it that there was any material irregularity...

    Presumption of regularity. There is always a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed, but this presumption is rebuttable. If the Respondent is able to even minimally show that the Applicant’s candidature was given a full and fair consideration, which he did not in the present case, then the presumption of law stands satisfied. Once a minimal showing has been made, the burden of proof thereafter shift to the Applicant, who need to show through clear and convincing evidence that he was denied a fair chance of promotion. Cancelling the first selection exercise and reissuing a...

    The filling of the Post with the ultimately-successful candidate cannot be characterized as a “transfer”, be it lateral or not. The ultimately-successful candidate was therefore rather selected for the Post. Simply stated, the Post did not qualify as a lateral transfer. The Respndent employed the wrong procedure. The Applicants, although ranked behind the initially-successful candidate, were also “suitable” candidates for the Post. The Tribunal finds that the selection exercise for the initially-selected candidate was improper. The Applicants having been deemed by the Tribunal as suitable...

    The UNDT identified several deviations in the performance evaluation procedures, but found that some of them resulted from the Applicant’s actions. The UNDT found that no harm warranting compensation was caused to the Applicant, including to her career, by the identified deviations in the performance evaluation process as the Applicant separated from service for medical reasons. The UNDT further found that the decision to reassign the Applicant within the same department was lawful. The application was rejected.